Gorillas have also shown that they can care for kittens.

And there's nothing modern about morality. That's ridiculous. I mean fuck, you called me pastor earlier. What source do pastor's usually use?

@discordian#3213 Well pretty much any animal can care for another species, that has been shown in cat's, dogs, and even tigers.

I mean I know the OT wasn't written down till Babylon in the 6th Century BC, but it was passed down orally before that.

@discordian#3213 Pastors say the same thing as you do. 'Use the feels, Luke'. And yet there is no material evidence that such a thing exists or should be followed. Every creature hungers, but not every creature is 'moral'.

Nonetheless it's useful to use it as a basis for action.
Regarding "gut feelings", all systems of logic are also built on them.

@Deleted User Most animals don't care for their young at all. It is human bias to notice that some do.

>use the feels
What a shit pastor

Prots strike again

The 8 axioms that are the foundation of regular mathematics, for example. Prove them to me without using your feels.

READ AQUINAS

No seriously though. Y'all are using logic here, right? Anyone know the foundational axioms of logic?

It's stuff like "A = A, for all A."

Now prove that to me without using your fee-fees.

Which logic? Aristotlean or?

@Deleted User Yet for humans, it is instinct to care for their young because they are unable to fend for themselves in a natural environment at a very young age, and are very susceptible to disease, and infection.

Just the regular kind of logic. The same kind underlying pretty much all of math.

When people *don't* use these basic axioms, things get wacky.

@Deleted User Yes, exactly. But this is uncommon in animal kingdom.

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

Prove that to me without your fee-fees.

@Deleted User That's what makes humans and most species of apes unique.

>regular logic
>doesn't know the difference between philosophy and maths

(In terms of caring for their young)

The fucking Peano axioms then. I think I explained myself pretty well but if you're gonna get nitpicky.

Expalin the Peano axioms without resorting to gut feeling.

Read Kant.

Lol didn't think you could.

>muh Kant

What are you, Ruskie?

Read Wittgenstein

Peano is maths.

So when you try to claim that morality doesn't exist because the basic foundations of morality are based on gut feeling, just know that the exact same argument applies to math.

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

Math isn't real either and all things are relative. It still works pretty damn well though, to such an extent that I think it's fair to call it real (if abstract) but I don't really care what you call it. It works and we *should* use it.

Oh boy.

should should should

It is useful.

It makes sense.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

@discordian#3213 Math is fucking dum an sheit